Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

even if you are the one who ends up on top bashing away or you get a sub from the guard,you are dead if you are training to defend yourself against someone who might be armed or have back up.Ever notice how vulnerable mma fighters are to Big John Mcarthy when he decides the fight is over

Hence why I have a big poster on my wall that says "the winner of a hand to hand fight is the guy whose buddy shows up first with a gun."

St Pierre, Loiseau? What do ya think we are going to believe what a couple of guys with last names like that say... eh?

c'est la vie!

Guard is not an optimal fighting position. Don and I both I think have said this. It simply is a position that is preferable to other positions if you are on the ground with someone on top. Watch lots of fights on youtube, see how many people naturally will end up in the guard.

MMA./UFC is a sport. In the early ones Royce and Co. dominated with the guard because no one knew how to use it, and exploit it. Today, it is not so. In an UFC situation, it is about equal these days, still preferable than being in the mount or in side control though. Ground and pound is a viable option in the ring.

I need to get the video up on you tube of my last competition in January in the European BJJ Championships, which I lost due to the fact that I am NOT a good BJJ player and went for the guard and got past to side control, (2 points for the guy that passed it). I would have been better off at NOT establishing the guard and letting him have the side control as it would have been no points, yet be my training, you never allow someone to have this position.

I also don't jump guard in practice, however my coach Jacare and I talked about this at the Europeans and he said it was a viable strategy in tournament if you have a good guard game.

Point is, don't confuse sport BJJ with the ability to adapt these things to reality. The fact is, I am a much better, well rounded fighter for understanding the Mount, Side Control, and the Guard.

In everyone of my combatives classes someone will bring up gouges, bites etc. I say, okay lets roll a few minutes without them, then lets roll with them, I will let you do whatever you want, however, I get to do them too. I have yet to have any takers once they realize the magnitude of what the abiity to dominate has on the effectiveness of these tools. Does not mean they are not effective, but the are a constant factor in every fight. Both fighters have the tools and it requires little skill to use them, however, the ones that can dominate the fight have the advantage of being able to use them effectively whereas the other poor guy is usually trying to just prevent damage to himself, not attack back.

Same with weapons. Look at the dog brothers if you want an Idea in video of how to properly train with weapons if you are serious about it. www.dogbrothers.com.

Bottomline, fighting skills with empty hand and blunt objects,and knifes require many, many skills and many, many different layers of methodology to train properly.

I as many have found that developing a foundation in the basics of body control and dominance, closing the distance, acheiving the clinch, and ground grappling to be a good base to expand upon with other skills such as weapons.

The only thing I will add to this thread, from a background as a police officer, defensive tactics trainer, SWAT member, and combatives instructor, is that Don and Kevin are exactly right.

BJJ is a godsend for the modern police officer both in controlling grounded suspects and defending against assaults that go to clinch and ground. I have done so repeatedly against various suspects under various conditions, and trained and seen others do the same.

Trained properly with "real life" in mind, BJJ will make it harder for people to gain control of you on the ground, let alone even get to a position where they can hurt you, make it far easier for you to get up off the ground (like when "his buddies" start coming toward you), and easier for you to access weapons and prevent an attacker from doing so.

It takes very little to adapt many of the same skills used on the competition mat for weapons based situations.

Indeed, I've found that it often seems like that is what the art was originally intended for when you start practicing that way. Many might be surprised how much "classical" jujutsu or even "aiki" comes out when you start training weapon retention or knife defense with a BJJ skill base.

For the record, I wasn't talking about being hit when your in the guard. I was talking about getting hit when your in the mount. I proper high mount defends you from ALL attacks from the guy on the bottom. The guy on the bottom can defend and escape, or die.

Just to add my spare $0.02, every good submission grappling school that I've every been to teaches the guard, side control & mount as positions from which to transition, finish or escape (depending which position you're in and what openings you're given) the engagement, rather than as an optimal place to stay and hang out.

Matter of fact, last night at the BJJ school I like to visit, the drill was "Iron Man", where you get five two-minute rounds with a fresh guy each time. The first round you both start from the knees, each successive round, the guy that stays in gets put in a worse position (side mount, full mount, etc) and needs to start and work from there. This gets repeated so that everybody gets to be the Iron Man, as well as one of the guys sent against him.

In my mind, this specific drill accomplishes a couple of things from a combatives perspective: 1) You learn how key positional advantage is and how sometimes the best you can do is 'survive' a tough one with determination and heart. 2) As you get progressively tired and faced with fresh partners, you have to keep your head and "feel" what's going on around you (especially in a small space with a lot of other people training - does wonders for 'zanshin') in order to escape, finish or transition.

Now, the above examples are for the purposes of illustrating how BJJ, in this context, trains the practitioner to develop desireable skills within its paradigm. Does aikido have its own methods for training its desired traits? Undoubtedly. The success of which seems to be a big subject of debate and one I'm not really interested in participating in other than to say that I think honest assessment of one's training methodology is a necessary phase for any practitioner.

It isn't a one-and-done-thing either, but a constant evaluation of a) Am I honestly meeting my goals for training? b) Am I honestly improving in accordance with those goals at a pace that is acceptable? c) Am I also meeting my teacher's expectations? d) Are my and my teacher's expectations in harmony?

Sometimes the answers will change, but that's because our perspective on things tends not to be static. If it is, that to me is a clear indicator that I'm no longer learning.

Greetings Everyone,
That is perhaps where some of this doubt or insecurity may arrise from, is that there are few Aikidoka who train for effective take down defense. (Maybe I'm wrong, please correct me if I am).

As a newbie, that is the one thing that I would suggest for this martial art, especially during Randori. Although I have seen dozens of impressive clips of Randori, I have yet to see even one attempt at a single or a double leg take down. IMHO your are doing yourself a huge injustice if you don't train for at least one or more opponents attempting to steal your center/movement by attacking your legs. In a real Budo situation it will happen.

Thank you for letting me join your wonderful forum.

Kevin

Hey Kevin, I think most people train for this.....They just don't know it.

I have recently done some sparring with some Judo and Bjj guys. And one technique that works very very well is "Tai Sabaki" if you have good Tenkan and good Sabaki, when they go for the take down help them down by getting out of the way. Every time they went for my waist or legs, I quickly did a "Soto Tenkan" movement with a little help of "Atemi" waza to the back of the neck nothing big just a little nudge, the mat hit them every time.

My biggest problem with most Aikidoka is that we don't really think about the "Bunkai" which means the application. In my Shotokan days when we did kata, "Bunkai" was stressed. If we think about what we are practicing, we will see that there is a solution for every attack in Aikido....just most people don't see them because they don't explore enough.

I get where you are coming from bunkai is definitely there, However. (you knew the however was coming)

This is where I have a little issue when you cross the threshold from principle training with proper posture alignment and center, to reality or sport.

This side of me says that bunkai is useless. Here is what I mean.

Pragmatically either you are practicing it and know you are practicing it or you are not.

This is really the core concerning aliveness. I am not saying that practicing randori, tai sabaki, or other things as we practice them in aikido is wrong. Frankly I am an advocate for practicing in this manner as it helps ensure and reinforce correct things. Whereas a weakness of training in an aliveness manner all the time can be difficult to learn or unlearn bad things.

However, in my experiences you will never learn how to adequately be proficient against non-compliance unless you practice it in this manner.

We can look to the bunkai (hidden techniques) all we want, but why waste time hiding techniques, other than to isolate out particular aspects that you want to reinforce or unlearn?

At some point, you must practice against real takedown attempts, as you did with your judo and BJJ buddies.

As you know, you probably found you did better than you thought you'd do with your aikido training just doing the things you learned in aikido.

However, if we want to become BETTER at these things or expand our abilities and versatility then why not practice against these things, and THEN carry it to the next level of transition. This is aliveness.

Anyway, I do agree with the bunkai being there in all aikido technique if practiced principally correct. I have had fun learning exactly what you say in the last couple of years through aliveness. Finding what can be interpreted principally, and learning how to free up that "bunkai" in my training!

For instance, I have found the clinch to be similar to irimi and ikkyu in principle. Bunkai is there....it is just up to you to apply the concept of aliveness to unlock it!

I think this has been what many of us that have cross trained and synthesized between BJJ and aikido.

I get where you are coming from bunkai is definitely there, However. (you knew the however was coming)

At some point, you must practice against real takedown attempts, as you did with your judo and BJJ buddies.

As you know, you probably found you did better than you thought you'd do with your aikido training just doing the things you learned in aikido.

I think this has been what many of us that have cross trained and synthesized between BJJ and aikido.

Thanks for sharing that with me..made me think!

I think we are saying the same thing....???

I believe that it is very good for us to practice "Cross train". I do it because I want to know where Bjj is coming from. I have no desire to rank in it, but I want to be able to understand it.

But my point was "And I think you got it" is that sometimes a lot of aikidoka become "Aiki Robots" able to execute a technique but not really understanding the technique.

As students we should IMO look beyond how to do a technique in class and question every technique.... And then at some point in time put it into action.

This is one of the few things that I admire about the Gracie's, they were willing to test their theories. "I don't agree with how they did it" But that's my $.01

And yes by the way "I did do a lot better than I thought" And even learned something about myself, which enables me to focus on my weakness in training. Case in point. When I was completely relaxed and let my technique work....they worked. When I tried to force technique I could not pull them off...at all.

About the Aikirobot thing. I think it depends on your goals with aikido. Some I think are concerned with learning to do aikido well, that is within the parameters of the art to better understand themselves and their relation to the world through the use of proper kineseology and proper body movement, processes etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Personally, I have learned quite a bit from these folks as they tend to study it a little deeper and a little more technical than I do.

However, I have a different focus which is to learn the techniques, postures, etc, and then figure out how to use them in non-resistance and more spontaneous way. It is important to me to look past the basic movements and understand application etc. The only way, IMO to do this is to train with aliveness.

Yes the Gracies did do what you are talking about. I think the reason we have BJJ and this aliveness paradigm is due to their methods of training and promotion. Brazillian culture fostered the enviornment and the methods they chose to promote it. Bottomline, it worked. Most of them have matured, grown up, and frankly have enough money, prestige, respect now I suppose that they don't need to go there any more.

On Crosstraining. I have recently grown to not like that word as it applies to my training. It is a philosophical thought I guess, semantics really. My thoughts are, I have a goal and criteria that I try to keep clear in my mind. All my training focuses on developing that goal. So, I train in aikido and I train in BJJ or whatever..to help me reach that goal. I view it more as integrative training more so than crosstraining, but again...semantics. I don't separate aikido practice from BJJ so much anymore. Just two different training conditions that apply the exact same principles, so I don't see it as cross training so much anymore.

I disagree with point 1). Take downs are very good for multiple attackers. So good in fact that it is a basic element of aiki randori. The bad idea is going down with the attacker. Not every bjj fighter is a double leg takedown guy. There are people like me who prefer footsweeps, hip throws, and body wheels. A takedown is a takedown, throw, shoot, or otherwise.

Iriminage is a form of takedown. to do a takedown you have to pretty much clinch, or enter behind. So you need to be versatile in many ways to off balance and put him on the ground.

Obviously in reality, there are strikes and all that too.

It is correct, that you certainly would not "shoot for a double" or go for an ankle if you were standing. Although if you were on the ground, I could see where you might want to do this depending on the situation.

Bottomline, you should be well rounded. Why limit yourself to NOT training takedowns of many flavors. Better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

Of course there are high probability techniques that you should practice more.

My experiences in aikido and sport grappling have lead me to believe that it ain't about techniques at all, it's more about the principles of movement that you train and how well you can apply them, regardless of what the other person "brings". Techniques are just a way of expressing principles.

'Course, it helps if part of training the principles involves other people "bringing" something valid that you have to deal with (be it strikes/grabs/locks/etc. from arms-length/clinch/ground/etc.). But then I think that folks, regardless of art/style, that want to be well-rounded, are going to find ways to address it.

Hello
And I think that the point, it is not that BJJ, any ground fighting or aikido is crap or even complementary. I think it is more that they may not be worth ones while given the particular society/environment it need to be considered into.
I can not find the post or the poster but after reading his post, an in his context, It does make sense in some modern police forces to use the guard position.
On the same token, we need to note that the medieval and 16-17th century hand-to-hand ground wrestling that both fighter going to the is almost totally absent. (Other than what seems to be "untutored" wrestling, young man play and judical dual in full plate.)

There are plays to defend against shooting high and low. It is limited to the entry/initial grab phase. (it is the same for all the grabbing methods but the low and high shot are mentioned specifically). and there are pin where the oppoenet is on the ground

This tend to indicated two things, that it was something that you could face hence it was done by some people, and that going any further on the ground may not have been an option considered viable at the time. It does not mean that ground fighting is pants; it was just not relevant given the circumstances.

On the same token, A German 15th century open hand masters seems to believe that "spiting and biting" was at least a nice get out of jail free card.
The eyes, the lower maxilla/mouth ligaments, the temples, the neck the throat and along the collarbone, the solar plexus, the navel, the goolies and the knee are designated as targets for pressure and strikes. (or under the arms pit).
As one poster said it does not help so much when on the ground but it sure does help you to go there in the first place. So in this context, it is valid.

Roughly translated that means,
An arm breaker
Should one grap you by the collar, at that time grab him with your left in front in the arcticulation and drive (that) him around and set your right arm onto is left arm onto the articulation of the elbow. And at the same time "enter and press (with that last bit)"towards the earth and press him with the irimi onto your right and grab the thrust with the right, with that you ??something?? "enter and press" at him)

Stopping the wrist one way, pushing the elbow the other that does have a nikkio flavour, I can see why it make sense at the time bollocks dagger are usually bigger than modern knife and you wore several layer or tightly woven fabric. So the risk of being cut is relatively low, now it is a little iffier to try that in a T-shirt with a modern knife.

To go back to our the topic, in the medieval context they have chosen for what ever reason, that going to the ground was a bad idea, so they have developed application of principles that will prevent it to happen. The very same move is used against unarmed opponents.
I can see the same concept applying to BJJ alone and aikido alone, so you do not necessarily need to mix the two, nor it is evil to do so. I think there is valid reason to go either way.
That being said, if you chose a stand alone way, seeing those application once and while could only help.

It is not about aikido, nor bjj it not what those arts can do. It is what you can do and what you train for. It is about aliveness. Add that into your training, then you can begin to understand the ranges and dynamics as they apply.

BJJ and Aikido offer us a very good basis to train with within two ranges. add in aliveness, and then you can use these methodologies to develop your mind and the skills necessary to understand the applications of what we learn in these arts.

The problem with the bjj vs multiple opponent argument is that if your going up against more than one opponent its very likely you will end up on the ground no matter what style your doing. Your only chance is to escape to a safe position where you can deal with each attacker one at a time.

I remember reading in Blitz magazine an article by John Wills (Machado Jujitsu) where he demonstrates how BJJ can be used against multiple opponents. He was suggesting if you are taken down you go to the guard and use your opponent as a shield as you choke him out. Once he is out you try to trip or roll into another attacker and then do the same. Interesting strategy...

Another thing, a good takedown on a hard surface can do quite a bit of damage to your opponent.

I remember reading in Blitz magazine an article by John Wills (Machado Jujitsu) where he demonstrates how BJJ can be used against multiple opponents. He was suggesting if you are taken down you go to the guard and use your opponent as a shield as you choke him out. Once he is out you try to trip or roll into another attacker and then do the same. Interesting strategy...

Another thing, a good takedown on a hard surface can do quite a bit of damage to your opponent.

John ismy BJJ coach (Will not Wills BTW). He tells a good story about a bar melee where he and one other guy went to the ground choked guys out and stayed underneath. They walked out unscathed. The other guys who stood and banged - while they won, came away with all sorts of cuts and bruises and injuries.

"When your only tool is a hammer every problem starts to look like a nail"

So you were taught you can't hit someone from the guard?I just saw George St. Pierre, (UFC champion in his weight category) on a T.V show about MMA, training with David Loiseau at Tri star gym where he said the exact opposite. He then said he prefered being in the guard due to the increased submission oportunities.

You don't sound like you misread Don, or do not understand what guard and mount are.

Guard: One person is in a defensive position on their back or side with their legs between them and their opponent.

The person on their guard can submit or deploy limited striking from the bottom.

The person IN the guard of their opponent can strike fairly well, or go for leg submissions. (GSP was talking about striking from within the opponents guard...)

Don was referring to mount, however.

Mount: Having passed the guard (legs) so that you now control your opponents hips by sitting, or kneeling on them. A person who's hips are controlled cannot marshal the power or reach to strike someone above them effectively. In a one on one situation, a sitting mount provides optimal control - you see this in MMA. In a scenario where multiple attackers are possible a knee across the belly mount is employed (you see this a lot on "Cops") - it provides greater mobility and visibility. You do not see it in mma because control is proffered in 1 on 1.

It is also, however, heavily used as a transition move in bjj, or simply because it's fun to squish white belts with...

GSP does not advocate striking from underneath the mount. He advocates squirming.

Reductio ad absurdum:
Your self defense system is laughable. I have discovered that having an armed posse trumps any sort of personal self defense technique. It has been demonstrated countless times in history. At my school we train how to be nice to others, win friends, and influence people such that you might muster a posse at all times. We also study the market, such that one might afford arms for their posse. It's the only best way you can really be safe.

The US army has taken this to heart, forming massive possies(sp?) for war making purposes.

To not train in the methods of posse forming simply because you don't care/think it's impossible/unimportant to make friends who will stand around you all the time is really foolish and short sighted. You're probably already dead!

The bottom line is no martial art is perfect. Each has it's positives and negatives. As far as Aikido vs. Brazilian Jujitsu; there are too many variables to consider to be able to come to a more definitive conclusion. Skill level, ability to adapt, creativity, and willingness are only just a few of the factors which play into this type of competition.
Furthermore aikido is a non-competitive art, there is no attack in true aikido. So if the opponent initiates an attack then he or she has given up some their center and that can be all that is needed to neutralize the situation.

I think the "vs" thing is a bit juvenile of a topic, which is probably one reason it's relegated to this section. But since I have some knowledge that might be of interest I'll toss out one(1) post on it.

First and foremost, let's distinguish between "fighting" and self-defense. "Fighting" is what happens when someone gets in your face and your ego refuses to let you ignore it. It's illegal, immoral, and definitely against the spirit of Aikido. And it's one aspect where I think Aikido training may have a benefit over other types of training, because more aggressive, confrontational training may make it harder to suppress the ego. Or perhaps people with certain insecurities are more drawn to aggressive training, but in any case it seems to make it less likely for people to brush off aggression.

That said, it is not and never has been the strategy of BJJ to go to the ground in a multiple opponent scenario. It may seem that way, because people want to learn the ground stuff and that's where the focus is. But BJJ *is* jiu-jitsu, there is a fairly extensive standup syllabus, and the techniques are very solid. I don't know how it is now, but back in the day at the Gracie Academy, you had to finish a standup curriculum before you could focus on the groundwork. I remember Rorion Gracie saying something to the effect that he had an album of Helio that catalogued some 1000+ techniques, along with narratives and photos. If memory serves those were the standup techniques, or in any case there were hundreds of standing techniques, as with any jiu-jitsu ryu. I remember one instance of Royce getting ticked off because he was teaching a class, was demonstrating something from a headlock with the victim pushed up against a wall, and the student had forgotten the counter. He went around testing everybody on standup work, and ended up forcing a review of standup material so people wouldn't forget it. It's an oft-neglected area because students come to BJJ specifically to learn ground fighting in most cases, but the standup syllabus has some of the better counters for certain holds that I've seen.

Now the machismo culture of Brazil that gave birth to BJJ ensured that one-on-one challenge matches were not hard to find, but Brazil is sufficiently violent that anything could happen, therefore reliance on 1-on-1 fighting strategy is a non-starter. Various anecdotes in random order:

- On the general level of violence, I recall Rickson saying that to go to Brazil as a tourist is just foolish. Unless you know people who live there and will stay with them during your visit, you will simply be a likely victim. Despite his skills, if he went out at night he would carry a .45 and two extra clips. That's practical self-defense.

- Craig Kukuk, who became the first American black belt from the academy, shared a story that happened during his extended stay in Brazil. A number of students went there for intensive training, and came back much better for it. I forget how many months he was there, but he was only alone *one* time for a few minutes, and sure enough he was immediately attacked by three men. He was walking to his car from a building, or some other short walk, and was attacked. Did he go to the ground? Of course not. He threw one attacker with the standard hip throw taught on the first day of training, retained the arm, and broke it. The other two ran away after witnessing that.

- Rickson is an avid surfer, and one day he and bunch of surfing buddies were away from their normal stomping grounds in another city, and went to a bar. Some guy got into it with him, and he headbutted him and knocked him out. Note, again, he did not go to the ground. Suddenly, the entire bar stood up, since a local had just gotten beat by a non-local. Everybody burst for the door, most of Rickson's "friends" ran for it, and Rickson and one real friend who stayed with him wound up outside encircled by 20-30 people. I don't care what art you study, at that point it's all the same thing. You get buffetted around the circle here and there, engaging in mini-encounters, trying to put people in each other's way, and hope to eventually escape, which they did. No demonstration of taking out any one person is going to instill fear in a crowd that large, and if you do something too aggressive, you will simply increase their determination to stomp you into your grave. Awareness, conditioning, and the technique to keep your base and stay *on* your feet and counter attempts to grapple you, which you also learn in grappling, is what counts.

In order to find yourself in a multiple-opponent self-defense scenario, you pretty much have to do something foolish to get there. Going to bars and getting into fights would be pretty high on the list of foolish things to do. There are plenty of good martial artists who have been dumb enough in their young lives to do such things, but also many who just got a knife or shotgun blast in the back for their trouble. Summary points:

1) BJJ does not advocate going to the ground unless conditions warrant it, and in the case of multiple opponents it's hard to imagine how it would be warranted. But, it could happen against your will. Unlike most arts, BJJ doesn't say "I'll never wind up on the ground", and so has an extensive curriculum to deal with that situation, including how to get up and get away. What you can do in cage fights you often can't do in real fights, but the technique addresses how to realistically defend yourself in scenarios most arts just assume you won't find yourself in, like on the floor underneath someone 50 - 100 lbs heavier than you trying to choke and punch you out. Until the popularity of BJJ, there was much denial about how often such scenarios happen in real fights. Women's self-defense in particular needs to address that scenario or else it's delusional. In other words, it's one thing to say you don't want to go there voluntarily, which is undoubtedly often wise - and another to assume you have to tools to handle it if you find yourself there against your will. It's hard to remember with MMA all the rage these days, but BJJ was designed to be a *self-defense* art, not a beat-people-up art, so that a small person can survive attack *no matter how bad a position they find themselves in*. Like any other art, its ideal purpose is to be used in the same mindset as Aikido, to defend oneself only when necessary.

2) The non-confrontational mindset espoused by Aikido is hugely important in practical terms of not getting into stupid situations. If it makes you walk away from an optional fight, consider that a win, whether or not you had the technique to prevail.

3) The internal skills would make it much harder for anyone to grapple you, which is significantly more useful than any twisty technique. The goal is to be able to take control of the other person's balance as soon as they touch you (well, before if possible, but let's leave that to white-bearded old wizards) not to take their balance because you're twisting something on them. It'll still work as would any good external jiu-jitsu technique, but as has been belabored here recently, a high level of Ki abilities is probably the real Grail, not being fast at grab-and-twist.

Like I said I'm not up for a giant discussion on it, but it's worth noting that Helio Gracie's own book on Jiu-Jitsu is reportedly 50-70% standup self-defense (haven't read it myself). He is also reported to have said of cage fighting, "that's not my jiu-jitsu".